Abstract
In contemporary times, technology promises to improve our quality of life and reduce uncertainty. I argue that technology increasingly fails to deliver on these promises. Reflections on uncertainty and human fulfillment lead us to reconsider society’s relationship to technology. To make the discussion concrete, I contextualize it within the topics of sustainable development and community resilience. As an analytical lens, I use the conception of the ‘good life’ to think about the goals of engineers, including in these goals the need for human happiness and deeper fulfillment. I draw from ancient philosophy, primarily the Stoics, to inform contemporary decisions on these matters. The Stoic concepts considered in this chapter are eudaimonia (flourishing), global concern, fate, avoiding judgment, visualizing and growing from adversity, and phronesis (practical wisdom). This approach is relevant to a wide range of professions interested in difficult decisions involving humanity’s future and wellbeing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The definition of system complexity is subject to nuanced debate. We do not need an exact definition here. I tend to think of complexity as having two sources: (1) a structural source due to the number and types of elements in a system and the number, arrangements, and types of connections between then, and (2) an epistemological source due to the inability of humans to understand and predict the evolution of the system (Rodriguez-Nikl 2017).
- 2.
It might be tempting to include natural disasters in this list. However, in addition to the bad luck involved in the occurrence of the natural event, there are a myriad of social-technological factors at play, e.g., building codes and practices (influenced by investment considerations and in many cases corruption), interdependency of lifeline systems such as power, water and transportation, and public policies and procedures in place to respond to the damage and provide for a speedy recovery. Thus, natural disasters are best considered in the context of complex socio-technical systems.
- 3.
To be fair, a particular technology can amplify the harm caused in these and other cases. For instance, the prevalence of rapid-fire weapons is a technological factor amplifying the casualties in mass shootings. I don’t argue against this. Rather, I point out that agents willing to cause harm will find a way, e.g., knife and sarin attacks in Japan.
- 4.
We will sidestep the question of whether or not “sustainable growth” is an oxymoron, and will allow for strategies such as “degrowth” to fit within the concept of sustainable development.
- 5.
- 6.
There is also a large amount of literature on resilience. See National Research Council (2012) for an introduction to the issues.
- 7.
Basic background on the Stoics has been drawn primarily from Baltzly (2018).
- 8.
Enchiridion or Handbook of Epictetus. All citations refer to the chapter number and are drawn from the Higginson (1890) translation.
- 9.
Discourses of Epictetus. All citations refer to the book and chapter numbers and are drawn from the Higginson (1890) translation.
- 10.
Seneca “On Clemency”. All citations refer to the chapter number and are drawn from the Hadas (1958) translation.
- 11.
Strictly speaking, these are not negative outcomes since we are also supposed to be indifferent to them. It may be better to say, “outcomes that to a progressing Stoic may at first glance seem to be negative”.
- 12.
Seneca “On Providence”. All citations refer to the section number and are drawn from the Hadas (1958) translation.
- 13.
Contemporary scientific research confirms that in many cases, e.g. post-traumatic growth, this is accurate (Haidt 2006).
- 14.
There is an underlying assumption that consumption carries with it negative consequences that should be avoided, e.g., resource depletion, pollution, and energy use with consequent impact on the climate. Should this change through some new technological developments worthy of science fiction, the Stoic views on consumption may change as well. Despite this, as is argued below, the Stoic views on struggle and adversity also argue for less consumption independently of these considerations.
- 15.
The Epicurean view, which promotes a simple life to avoid the negative long-term effects of pleasure seeking, is a notable exception.
References
Abe, N., Aguirre, A., Andersson, M., Benedict, K., Conn, A., Dafoe, A., Gaffney, O., Heymann, D., Ivanova, M., Kane, A., Krakovna, V., Mallah, R., Osano, P., Rees, M., Pasztor, J., Sandberg, A., Spahr, T., Sparks, S., Srivastava, L., Tegmark, M., Tzezana, R. (2018). Global catastrophic risks 2018. Global Challenges Foundation.
Baltzly, D. (2018). Stoicism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/stoicism/>.
Bulleit, W.M. (2016, February). The engineering way of thinking: An analysis. Structure Magazine.
Crow, M. M. (2007). None dare call it hubris: The limits of knowledge. Issues in Science and Technology, 23(2).
Dörner, D. (1996). The logic of failure. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Dunne, J. (2005). An intricate fabric: Understanding the rationality of practice. Pedagogy Cult. Soc., 13(3), 367–389.
Easterlin, R. A., McVey, L. A., Switek, M., Sawangfa, O., & Zweig, J. S. (2010). The happiness–income paradox revisited. PNAS, 107(52).
Gapminder. (2018). <www.gapminder.org>. Accessed 12 Dec 2018.
Hadas. (1958). The stoic philosophy of Seneca. New York: W.W. Norton &.
Haidt, J. (2006). The happiness hypothesis: Finding modern truth in ancient wisdom. New York: Basic Books.
Helbing, D. (2003). Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature, 497, 51–59.
Higginson. (1890). The works of Epictetus: His discourses, in four books, the enchiridion, and fragments. Epictetus. Thomas Wentworth Higginson, translator, Perseus Digital Library, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0557.tlg001.perseus-eng2:0.0, Accessed 14 Dec 2018.
Hursthouse, R. & Pettigrove, G. (2016). “Virtue Ethics”, The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/ethics-virtue/>.
Inglehart, R., Foa, R., Peterson, C., & Welzel, C. (2008). Development, freedom and rising happiness: A global perspective 1981-2006. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(4), 264–285.
Irvine, W. B. (2009). A guide to the good life. The ancient art of stoic joy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mac Suibhne, S. (2009). ‘Wrestle to be the man philosophy wished to make you’: Marcus Aurelius, reflective practitioner. Reflective Practice, 10(4), 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940903138266.
Mosher, D. & Gould, S. (2018, November 9). How likely is gun violence to kill the average American? The odds may surprise you. Business Insider. https://amp.businessinsider.com/mass-shooting-gun-statistics-2018-2, Accessed 14 Dec 2018.
National Research Council. (2012). Disaster resilience: A National Imperative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13457.
Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents living with high risk technologies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Robertson, D. (2013). Stoicism and the art of happiness. London: Teach Yourself.
Rodriguez-Nikl, T. (2015). Linking disaster resilience and sustainability. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 32(1–2), 157–169.
Rodriguez-Nikl, T. (2017). Using systems thinking to achieve sustainability and disaster resilience. In C. N. Madu & C.-H. Kuei (Eds.), Handbook of disaster risk reduction & management (pp. 139–169).
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic Well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.
Stockdale, J. B. (1993). Courage under fire: Testing epictetus’s doctrines in a laboratory of human behavior. Stanford: Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Taylor. (2018). The ethics of authenticity. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
UN. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development, United Nations Resolution A/RES/70/1.
UNDP. (2018). Human development indices and indicators: 2018 statistical update, United Nations Development Programme.
Vucetich, J. A., & Nelson, M. P. (2010). Sustainability: Virtuous or vulgar? Bioscience, 60(7), 539 544.
WCED. (1987). Our common future, report of the world commission on environment and development, United Nations.
Whiting, K., Konstantakos, L., Carrasco, A., & Carmona, L. G. (2018). Sustainable Development,Wellbeing and material consumption: A stoic perspective. Sustainability, 10, 474. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020474.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Zachary Pirtle for his insightful and extensive comments on the first draft of the manuscript. I appreciate the openness of the broader fPET community, who provided a forum for developing these ideas, and the members of the Engineering Philosophy Committee of the Structural Engineering Institute – Jon Schmidt, Bill Bulleit, Irfan Alvi, and Erik Nelson – who have facilitated a space within the engineering world to explore philosophical ideas.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rodriguez-Nikl, T. (2021). Technology, Uncertainty, and the Good Life: A Stoic Perspective. In: Pirtle, Z., Tomblin, D., Madhavan, G. (eds) Engineering and Philosophy. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 37. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70099-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70099-7_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-70098-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-70099-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)